Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
To cite this article: Marianne Hem Eriksen (2016) Commemorating Dwelling: The Death and
Burial of Houses in Iron and Viking Age Scandinavia, European Journal of Archaeology, 19:3,
477-496, DOI: 10.1080/14619571.2016.1186918
Current debates on the ontology of objects and matter have reinvigorated archaeological theoretical dis-
course and opened a multitude of perspectives on understanding the past, perspectives which have only
just begun to be explored in scholarship on Late Iron Age Scandinavia. This article is a critical discus-
sion of the sporadic tradition of covering longhouses and halls with burial mounds in the Iron and
Viking ages. After having stood as social markers in the landscape for decades or even centuries, some
dwellings were transformed into mortuary monuments — material and mnemonic spaces of the dead.
Yet, was it the house or a deceased individual that was being interred and memorialized? Through an
exploration of buildings that have been overlain by burial mounds, and by drawing on theoretical
debates about social biographies and the material turn, this article illuminates mortuary citations
between houses and bodies in Late Iron Age Scandinavia. Ultimately, I question the assumed anthro-
pocentricity of the practice of burying houses. Rather, I suggest that the house was interwoven with the
essence of the household and that the transformation of the building was a mortuary citation not necess-
arily of an individual, but of the entire, entangled social meshwork of the house.
Keywords: Iron Age, Viking Age, Scandinavia, halls, burial mounds, buried houses, social biogra-
phy, agency of the house, material turn
DOI 10.1080/14619571.2016.1186918
© European Association of Archaeologists 2016
Manuscript received 9 August 2015,
accepted 4 May 2016
478 European Journal of Archaeology 19 (3) 2016
Figure 1. Location map of the central-Scandinavian sites with buried houses discussed in this article.
centuries later than the house fire, four small grave cairns were con-
(Myhre, 1992: 55–57). structed over the plot. One cairn was
(3) Brista. A Migration-period longhouse constructed directly on top of the
from Brista, Uppland, Sweden, was child’s burial, possibly indicating
similarly burnt to the ground (Renck, knowledge of the child deposited in
2000; 2008). The cremated bones of a the posthole.
small child, accompanied by a bone (4) Jarlsberg. At Jarlsberg, Vestfold,
comb, had been deposited in a post- Norway, a sixth- to seventh-century
hole of the burnt building. It is not building with possible hall function was
specified whether this deposition also destroyed in a fire (Grindkåsa,
occurred during the construction of 2012). After the fire, an adult individual
the house or in connection with the was inhumed in the remains of the
fire (see Carlie, 2004: 141). Some burnt-down house, interred on the
decades or up to a century after the central axis of the dwelling section of
Eriksen – Commemorating Dwelling 481
Figure 2. Plans of buried houses from central Scandinavia. Högom adapted after Ramqvist (1992:
224) and Ullandhaug adapted after Myhre (1980: 33, 84). By permission of Per Ramqvist, Lise
Nordenborg Myhre.
the longhouse. Funerary objects, includ- Norway was in the Viking Age
ing an assemblage of weapons, a type of covered by a burial cairn, 7 m in
pin pointing to a continental origin, diameter. The house, and thereby the
and a horse’s head indicate that the mortuary monument, had been
social display of the deceased was that placed on a ridge at the highest point
of an elite warrior. The spatial relation- of the landscape. The grave, possibly
ship between settlement and of a woman based on the artefact
inhumation burial is deliberate, and the assemblage, contained burnt human
time span between the two is thought remains, a spindle whorl, an iron knife,
to be ‘very short’ (Grindkåsa, 2012: 87). and unidentifiable iron fragments. The
Subsequently, five burial mounds with individual with female-gendered items
diameters of 10–12 m were erected over may have been cremated with animals,
and around the house. The mounds as a mixture of human and animal
were placed exclusively over and adja- bone was recovered. The excavator
cent to the dwelling quarters of the argues that several elements point to
longhouse, and one of the mounds’ ring the house being constructed in the
ditch was placed directly above the mid-Viking Age (tenth century), and
inhumation burial. This may in turn subsequently being dismantled in order
imply a long-lived memory of the spatial to build the cairn (Risbøl Nielsen,
organization of the house. The mounds 1995: 17).1
were removed in modern times, and
nothing is known of their content. 1
Unfortunately, no illustration of the spatial relationship
(5) Engelaug. Finally, a three-aisled between the house and grave at Engelaug could be located in
the topographical archives in the Museum of Cultural History,
longhouse from Engelaug, Hedmark, Oslo.
482 European Journal of Archaeology 19 (3) 2016
Figure 3. Plans of buried houses from central Scandinavia. Brista adapted after Renck (2000: 219)
and Jarlsberg adapted after Grindkåsa (2012: 46). By permission of Michael Olausson, Lars Erik
Gjerpe/E18-prosjektet Gulli-Langåker.
These seven houses were thus covered by construction of the mound varies signifi-
graves after the end of their lifespan. In all cantly among the sites. The inhumation in
cases, the excavators interpret the place- the dwelling room at Jarlsberg seems to
ment of the burials as deliberate. However, have taken place immediately after destruc-
there are some differences between them. tion. Likewise, at Engelaug and Högom,
First, the size and spatial order of the the burial mounds were erected immedi-
mounds vary significantly (Figures 2 and ately or very shortly after the houses were
3). Second, the characteristics of the dismantled. After the end of habitation, the
deceased humans vary. Both genders are character of these sites changed radically
likely to be represented, as well as a small from lived spaces, dwellings surrounded by
child, as are diverse body treatments, and fields and grazing animals, to mortuary
miscellaneous funerary objects. Signifi- landscapes. At Ullandhaug and Brista, on
cantly, not all graves contain traces of dead the other hand, decades or centuries may
bodies, even when the conditions for pres- have passed between the discontinuation of
ervation suggest that bones should have settlement and the construction of the
been preserved (i.e. Högom). Third, the burial mounds. The mounds were never-
time span between habitation and the theless in all likelihood foci of diverse
Eriksen – Commemorating Dwelling
Table 1. Overview of seven buried houses from Central Scandinavia
Site Date of Post-abandonment Time span between house Interpreted gender Body treatment Funerary objects
house treatment and grave
Högom IV Fourth–fifth – Immediate to decades? Interpreted male in Cremation Iron kettle with cleaned, burnt bones,
century primary burial horse, bear claws, bronze fragments,
Int. female in Cremation comb
secondary burial Burnt bones, comb, brooch, bear claws,
horse, dog, sheep/goat
Högom III Fifth century Fire Immediate – – –
Post removal
Ullandhaug Fifth–sixth Fire Centuries? – – –
1 century
Ullandhaug Fifth–sixth – Unknown – – Spearhead
6 century
Brista Fifth–sixth Fire Decades? Unsexed child in Cremation (child) Comb in child burial
century posthole
Unknown gender(s) in Unknown body Unknown artefacts in mounds
mounds treatment in mounds
Jarlsberg Sixth– Fire Immediate inhumation Int. male inhumed on Inhumation Inhumation: Sword, spear, shield,
seventh burial in floor layer central axis burial in floor layer knives, whetstone, horse’s head
century Unknown time span Unknown gender(s) in Unknown body Unknown artefacts in mounds
before mounds were burial mounds treatments in mounds
erected
Engelaug Eighth–ninth Pulled down to build Immediate Int. female Cremation Spindle whorl, iron fragments,
century the mound iron knife, fragment of pin
(oval brooch?)
483
484 European Journal of Archaeology 19 (3) 2016
another that the house can consist of body metaphor for the house during the Viking
parts, similar to a person. Exploring Age (Cleasby et al., 1957: 160).
human evolution through the perspective This is not the only instance where
of the built environment, Wilson (1988: links between the house and animal bodies
67) writes: ‘In other instances it is not so appear. The hall of the epic Beowulf is
much that the house is laid out according named Heorot (‘deer’), again indicating a
to the plan of the human body as that the link with the animal realm. Intriguingly, a
house is a body (and a body is a house)…’. type of Viking Age comb made precisely
A set of intangible material may under- of deer or elk antler has been regarded as
pin the corporeal qualities of Iron Age and material citations of Scandinavian-style
Viking Age houses too, in the etymology halls (Gansum, 2003) — possibly
of Old Norse (ON) words for construc- suggesting a link between the animal
tional elements of the house. The word realm and the house. Likewise, the fasci-
‘window’, ON vindauge literally means nating British artefact group known as
‘wind-eye’, and probably describes venti- hogbacks (see Williams, this issue) are
lation openings constituting ‘eyes’ where clearly citations of houses and animals
the wind passed through the wall (Bjor- concurrently. Some hogbacks are even
vand & Lindeman, 2007: 1311). Likewise, flanked by two bears (see the metaphor of
the word for the short-end of the house, the house-bear above). The hogbacks thus
‘gable’, ON gavl, is related to proto- create citational fields between animal
Germanic *geblan, meaning ‘head, skull, bodies, houses, and memorials for the
gable’ (Bjorvand & Lindeman, 2007: 348– dead. Animals were an all-encompassing
49). And even though the etymology is metaphor in Scandinavia from the
unclear, many Germanic languages display Migration period onwards (e.g. Hedeager,
a relationship between words for roof- 2004), most notably expressed in the
supporting posts (ON stafr) and verbs and Nordic animal styles, but also in the fre-
nouns relating to ‘walk forwards’, ‘foot- quent deposition of animals in graves, and
print’ (Bjorvand & Lindeman, 2007: the pervading custom of using names of
1046–47), indicating a connotation animals as personal names. Perhaps, then,
between wooden posts and the ‘legs’ of the longhouses and halls were intertwined
house. This idea is reinforced by Norse with zoomorphic qualities, encapsulating
texts: in the poem Thorsdråpa attributed to some essence from the animal realm.
the tenth century, such a post is described Whether houses were cognately related
as fornan fótlegg, i.e. ‘the ancient leg’. with a human body or animal body, we
This metaphor for the wooden posts should perhaps transcend the idea that
leads to another question: if Scandinavian houses were merely representations of
houses were cognitively related to bodies, bodies. Representationalism is examined,
must these bodies necessarily be human? for example, by Alberti and Marshall
The metaphor from Thorsdråpa does not (2009), who discuss anthropomorphic
only refer to the post as ‘the ancient leg’, it pottery from first-millennium north-
actually specifies that the post is the western Argentina. The vessels — ‘body-
ancient leg of ON fletbjörn. This word is pots’ — are not understood as clay rep-
composed of two elements, flet, meaning resentations of bodies. Rather, the objects
‘house’ or ‘storey of a house’ (related to are taken to be literal body-pots, agential
modern English ‘flat’) and björn, meaning entities transcending a human/thing
‘bear’. Thus, the posts are the legs of the divide. Following their argument, the
house-bear — an animal body is used as a body-pot is thus not a ‘thing’, nor is it a
Eriksen – Commemorating Dwelling 487
The house at Jarlsberg was built in the landscapes, kin) and, equally importantly,
early sixth century and is thought to have it also transcends time. The house stood for
had a standing life of approximately a approximately three or four generations.
hundred years — i.e. three or four gener- This entails that weddings, births, and
ations. Two opposing entrances divide the deaths will have taken place within the
longhouse into two sections: the north end physical framework of the house, as well
of the house is interpreted as a byre, built as decades of domestic practices, the use
with posts on pad stones, while the of countless artefacts, and the creation of
southern end is interpreted as the dwelling thousands of memories. The meshwork of
section. The artefact assemblages from the the house cannot be reduced to only the
house include beads of glass and clay, c. artefact material, or the architectural struc-
500 g of ceramics from different vessels ture, or the humans dwelling there. The
used for food preparation (among them a aggregate of all these interwoven elements
bucket-shaped pot seemingly older than make up the meshwork that is later com-
the house, with lipid residue intact), and memorated through burying the house.
burnt faunal remains of pig, cattle, horse,
and sheep/goat. In addition, the archaeo-
botanical material from the site indicates THE STANDING LIFE OF THE HOUSE
cultivation of oat and barley.
This set of archaeological material During their life, houses dispersed
implies that certain social practices took throughout the landscape may thus have
place at Jarlsberg: tending livestock, culti- constituted dynamic embodiments of
vating the fields, slaughtering animals, essence and intertwined human/non-
preparing food by the hearth, including human agencies, linking networks of pre-
using the old bucket-shaped pot, commu- vious generations with the present and the
nal consumption, social interaction. The future. A common trait of the halls, which
beads point to practices of body ornamen- may differentiate them from more average
tation, plausibly female-gendered, and settlements, is that they are built and
implies travel or networks to places where rebuilt on the same spot for long periods
glass beads were produced. The burial of of time, sometimes centuries (Eriksen,
the person displayed as a warrior also 2010: 52–53). This may be a deliberate act
points to certain practices: real or idealized to extend the lifespan of the building, an
connections with a warrior band or allies; increasing institutionalization of the
a relation between the decapitated horse house. This practice of curating houses
and the deceased; a particular pin implying was executed by repeatedly replacing the
a relational line (travel? trade? gift roof-supporting posts. Some of the longest
exchange?) with the Continent; and of standing halls have lifespans extending
course, the burial itself implies a deliberate across centuries, with roof-supporting
act of commemorating the dead through a posts replaced time and again, for example
set of mortuary practices. Lejre in Denmark (Christensen, 2010) or
The meshwork of Jarlsberg, like other Borg in Norway (Herschend & Mikkel-
settlement sites, clearly works as a node sen, 2003). At Lejre even the same
knitting together internal, social relations postholes were reused, indicating an
in the household (see Jones, 2007). extreme spatial conservatism. At Borg, on
However, it also includes relational lines the other hand, an expansion from the
of movement towards other things, places, earlier to the later building was done in a
and people (craftspeople, materials, allies, manner that kept the hall room in position
Eriksen – Commemorating Dwelling 489
on the very highest point of the ridge, but on the settlement. In some cases, such as
extended and altered the rest of the build- at Jarlsberg, the death of an inhabitant and
ing (Herschend & Mikkelsen, 2003: 65). the house seem to coincide, and may very
Stenholm (2006) has convincingly well be linked. In any case, somehow the
argued that overlaying houses in this meshwork of people, animals, things, and
manner is a form of ‘spatial remembrance’, matter breaks down, and the house is no
where the repeated overlaying of houses longer viable.
was a ‘way to create legitimacy for the In funerary rites of the Scandinavian
social order’ (Stenholm, 2006: 344). The Iron Age, maintenance of bodily integrity
curation of the halls may thus be seen as a did not necessarily constitute an ideal. On
strategy to create continuity not only the contrary, burial rites often involved a
spatially, but also socially and politically — deliberate fragmentation of the body.
the hall was the foremost monument of Hedeager argues that ‘Through a process
power for a regional or supra-regional of deconstruction, skeleton remains
leader. However, drawing on the idea of achieved an afterlife and thus outlived the
the house–body, the extension of the living person in a variety of contexts.
standing life of the hall could also be a Bodily remains were imbued with agency
strategy to ‘keep the house alive’, to and a biography of their own…’ (Hedea-
enforce and strengthen the entire inter- ger, 2010: 111). Following the train of
twined meshwork of the house, beyond thought of the house–body, the same ideal
political ramifications. In his discussion of could apply to dead houses. A common
memory and material culture, Jones (2007: trait of hall buildings is that they are con-
82–84) divides objects into two categories: sciously deconstructed after their death,
artefacts which endure over time, and when the roof-supporting posts are pulled
ephemeral artefacts. The first are objects out of the ground, possibly to be reused in
which extend through time due to their other contexts. This was for instance the
durability and thus connect different net- case at Högom (Ramqvist, 1992: 169).
works, while the latter are objects that are Icelandic sagas reveal that posts from
created and disposed of, perhaps in recur- houses, particularly posts connected to the
ring cycles. Through the act of curating high seat, were taken by Norse migrants
the hall, I would argue that it became an to Iceland. The Vikings would throw the
enduring artefact in Jones’s terminology, posts overboard, and where the posts
‘indexes or objects worthy of citation over reached the shore, they would build new
considerable periods of time; they phys- halls or cult buildings (e.g. Eyrbyggja Saga
ically extend through networks over time’ 4). The sagas mention the same custom
(Jones, 2007: 82, original emphasis). From with regard to cadavers: when Kveldulf
this perspective, the hall was rebuilt over died on the voyage to Iceland, his son
and again to prevent its death. threw the coffin containing the body over-
board, and where the dead man washed
ashore, they settled (Egil’s Saga 27). Con-
THE DEATH OF THE HOUSE sequently, these narratives may again
underpin a relationship between house and
At some point during a house’s lifespan, body, house parts and body parts. When
the dwelling is forsaken. There may be roof-supporting posts were removed from
several reasons why a settlement is discon- buildings during the dismantling phase,
tinued, including agricultural collapse, this may have been because the posts were
social or political reorganization, or attacks imbued with the essence and agency of
490 European Journal of Archaeology 19 (3) 2016
the house–body. Based on the etymologi- through archaeology today; Price (2008:
cal indications discussed above, the posts 259) tentatively estimates that more than
may have formed the very bones of the half of the populations of the Viking
house, removed to be inserted into a new period may not have received a formal
context. Through this action, a new dwell- grave at all. Human bodies could be
ing in a novel territory would still cite the treated in a myriad of ways in the Iron
ancestral home. Age and particularly the Viking Age:
In addition to deliberately dismantling cadavers could be cremated, inhumed, or
the building, other forms of deconstruct- dismembered, their body position supine,
ing the house–body may have taken place. prone, or seated; they could be buried in a
Table 1 shows that four of the seven house, in a ship, in a boat, in a chamber,
houses overlain by burial mounds burnt to in a coffin, in the earth, alone, together,
the ground before burial. Renck (2000) decapitated, with animals, with objects,
suggests that it may not be coincidental with wagons, in urns, in cauldrons, scat-
that several buried houses caught fire tered in a mound, their bones ground, and
before they were transformed into mortu- so on (see for example Svanberg, 2003;
ary monuments. She indicates that the Price, 2008). Perhaps the intentional dis-
houses were burnt deliberately, as a ‘fire mantling of the house, where the posts
sacrifice’. Pursuing this notion further, I were pulled up and removed (possibly to
question whether houses were purely burnt be inserted into new contexts), simply
as a sacrifice, or whether the concept of constituted an alternative mortuary prac-
the house–body was at play. May burning tice for the meshwork of the house.
the building have constituted a cremation Intentionally burning the house may be
of the house? Burning the house may have another variant of post-abandonment
been a process of deliberate fragmentation treatment (see Tringham, 2000).
and transformation of the house, analo- The seven examples of buried houses
gous to how cremation can be understood discussed here are biased towards high-
as the deliberate fragmentation and trans- status settlements, and it is possible that
formation of the body (e.g. Williams, social standing would come into play
2001). when deciding the form of post-
abandonment treatment. Mound burial is
in itself linked with certain social strata.
THE BURIAL OF THE HOUSE The significance of the house–body may
conceivably have been stronger for high-
After the conception, life, death, and status households, entailing a greater
abandonment of certain houses, their desire for ritual commemoration. A com-
transformed bodies were superimposed by memoration in the form of a mortuary
mortuary monuments. As the custom has monument was plausibly an honour only
not been quantified, it is difficult to state extended to some — whether human or
how rare the tradition of burying houses house. However, the custom does not
was — but in any case it was not seem solely connected to the upper social
common. The fact that only some houses strata. Other possible reasons why some
were interred, while the majority were houses were treated in this way are open
(presumably) merely abandoned, does not to speculation: one reason could feasibly
render the custom meaningless. In fact, we be the nature of the events leading up to
already know that many humans did not the house’s abandonment. Perhaps some
receive a burial in a form that is observable reasons for abandonment necessitated
Eriksen – Commemorating Dwelling 491
certain closing actions to ensure a correct Finally, it is important to stress that only
passing of the house. It is conceivable that selected mounds constructed over houses
some houses had to be burnt because contain human remains. Dead humans
certain events necessitated a complete have generally been assumed to be the
destruction of the house, for example crucial point of the burial practice. The
certain forms of illness (Tringham, 2000: house has been interpreted, explicitly or
124), or the need to force the spirits of the implicitly, as a ‘grave-good’ for the dead.
dead inhabitants to leave the dwelling Renck (2000: 220–21), for instance, inter-
(Blier, 1987: 125–26). Another reason prets the burning of the house at Brista as a
may be the population’s desire to create sacrifice for the dead child. However, fol-
public, performative events which, in the lowing the line of reasoning that has been
words of Jones (2007: 70), ‘engender an presented here, I wish to turn the argument
active process of remembrance’. Perhaps on its head. Can we assume that the house
certain house–bodies had such a life must be a gift or sacrifice to a dead person?
history that they needed to be remembered An alternative, although quite radical way
through complex events of dismantling, of looking at the events of the house at
burning, or burying the house to ensure its Brista, would be to ask whether the child
commemoration. was deposited as a funerary object with the
In some instances, the construction of a dead house. This falls in line with rare tra-
mound over the house seems to have ditions of depositing infants and toddlers
taken place immediately after abandon- as construction deposits in Northern
ment, as for example at Engelaug and Europe (Capelle, 1987). In Scandinavia
Högom (Table 1). However, in other this has, in addition to the Brista case, been
cases, decades or even centuries elapsed attested at the Early Iron Age site of Sejl-
between the collapse of the network — flod in Denmark, where eight infants were
the death and abandonment of the house deposited in abandoned longhouses
— and its burial, as at Ullandhaug 1 and (Nielsen & Rasmussen, 1986); at the Early
Brista. In the cases of an extended time Iron Age site of Rolfståan in Sweden,
span between the abandonment and burial where the burnt remains of a child were
of the house, the intent was possibly more deposited by the hearth (Carlie, 2004:
strategic, following Renck’s (2008) 141); and in the Viking Age by the depo-
interpretation of territorial claims. sition of four children in what is
However, the time lapse means that the interpreted as two sacrificial wells at the
memory of the house must have been military encampment of Trelleborg
upheld for centuries, and the knowledge (Jørgensen et al., 2014). Following the
must consequently have been transferred argument developed here, I would suggest
from generation to generation. Sub- that these practices are not necessarily
sequently, after hundreds of years, Late centred on the dead children, but on the
Iron Age people returned to the site and abandonment of the settlement sites them-
made the economic and ritual investments selves. Whether or not the children died of
of interring a long-dead house. Perhaps natural causes and were subsequently
this was intended not only as an act of deposited in constructional remains, or
commemoration, but even as a way to were sacrificed, is impossible to ascertain.
connect with a dead house–body through However, we cannot automatically dismiss
a new citation. The strategy may have the possibility that children (or adults)
been to manipulate social memory and deposited in connections with buildings
conjoin hitherto separate meshworks. were sacrificed in honour of the house.
492 European Journal of Archaeology 19 (3) 2016
By recognizing and actively challenging Yet more average settlements could also see-
the assumptions of anthropocentrism and mingly be entangled in complex relations
ideas of inherent rationality, it is possible between house and person, fragmentation of
to approach social phenomena in the past bodies and fragmentation of houses, and mor-
in new and original ways. The broader tuary citations between the two.
implications of the argument of this article Burial practices can be understood as
are threefold. First, to challenge settlement transactions involving the encounter and
archaeology in Scandinavia, by viewing the circulation of various agencies and entities,
built environment as more than a shelter material and immaterial, human and non-
or an economic unit. The house can be human. In this article, I argue that over-
seen as a nodal point in the social fabric of laying a longhouse with a burial mound is
the Iron and Viking Ages, a cluster of het- not necessarily an elaborate mortuary
erogeneous agencies and materialities. A monument for a particularly powerful
second implication is that strict divisions individual, as is often assumed. Nor is it
between mortuary archaeology and settle- necessarily limited to a rational-economic
ment archaeology should be transcended, act of communicating territorial rights. I
and social phenomena should be suggest that the practice should be
approached as the interconnected pro- explored as an ontological reality in the
cesses they are. Third, my aim has been to past, where the house–body was an entire
widen the interpretative horizons of tra- relational meshwork of humans, animals,
ditional archaeological models and use things, practices, and spaces. This social
current debates on the agency of the agent, the house–body, could be curated
material world to approach old material for extended periods, and subsequently
from new points of view. disrupted, deconstructed, cremated, and
interred. Its mortuary transformation into
a burial mound is thus a commemoration
CONCLUSIONS: COMMEMORATING and a rite de passage of the entire relational
DWELLING intertwinement of people, things, bodies,
spaces, and materialities that made up the
The intricate intertwinement between archi- house. Ultimately, I have questioned the a
tecture, patterns of domestic practice, life priori assumption of the anthropocentricity
rhythm, artefacts, and people — alive and of burial in the Iron and Viking Ages. As
dead — situates the house and household at researchers, we should not assume uncriti-
the centre of social production in Iron Age cally that people in the past thought about
and Viking Age Scandinavia (Eriksen, the world in rational-economic terms. In
2015a). In this article I have, through three light of the interpretation of houses being
interpretative steps, argued that this intertwi- the primary focus of certain burial prac-
nement may have been conceptualized as an tices in the Iron and Viking Ages, perhaps
essence in an embodied form, a house–body puzzling archaeological categories such as
that was born, lived, matured, and eventually cenotaphs and votive deposition could be
died. Elite architectural monuments in par- revisited and explored anew.
ticular may have been conceptualized as social
agents, and as material expressions of symbolic
capital, territorial claims, and social memory. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The extended curation of halls may have con-
stituted strategies of power legitimation, Many thanks to Howard Williams for
upholding the social order (Stenholm, 2006). inviting me to contribute to this special
Eriksen – Commemorating Dwelling 493
issue, and his helpful comments on earlier Bailey, D.W. 1990. The Living House:
drafts. Some ideas presented in this article Signifying Continuity. In: R. Samson, ed.
originally derive from my master’s disser- The Social Archaeology of Houses.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
tation, and during my MA work I pp. 19–48.
benefitted substantially from discussions Baudou, E. 1989. Hög - gård - helgedom i
with supervisor Per Ditlef Fredriksen. Mellannorrland under den äldre
These ideas were developed further as a järnåldern. Arkeologi i norr, 2:9–43.
side branch to my doctoral work at the Bjorvand, H. & Lindeman, F.O. 2007. Våre
arveord: etymologisk ordbok. Oslo: Novus.
Department of Archaeology, Conserva- Blier, S.P. 1987. The Anatomy of Architecture.
tion, and History at the University of Ontology and Metaphor in Batammaliba
Oslo. Lotte Hedeager, Unn Pedersen, Per Architectural Expression. Cambridge:
Ditlef Fredriksen, and Elise Naumann Cambridge University Press.
provided thought-provoking and useful Bloch, M. 1995. The Resurrection of the
House Amongst the Zafimaniry of
suggestions for this article, for which I am Madagascar. In: J. Carsten & S.
very grateful. Many thanks also to two Hugh-Jones, eds. About the House:
anonymous reviewers. Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–83.
Boivin, N. 2008. Material Cultures, Material
ORCID Minds: The Impact of Things on Human
Thought, Society, and Evolution.
Marianne Hem Eriksen http://orcid.org/ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
0000-0001-5894-7713 Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of
Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brück, J. 1999. Houses, Lifecycles and Deposition
REFERENCES on Middle Bronze Age Settlements in
Southern England. Proceedings of the
Primary Sources Prehistoric Society, 65:145–66.
Egil’s Saga. 2001. In: Thorsson, Ö. ed. The Sagas Brück, J. & Fontijn, D. 2013. The Myth of
of Icelanders: A Selection, trans. by B. Scudder. the Chief: Prestige Goods, Power, and
New York: Penguin, pp. 3–184. Personhood in the European Bronze Age.
Eyrbyggja Saga. 1989. Trans. by H. Pálsson & In: H. Fokkens & A. Harding, eds. The
P. Edwards. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze
Thorsdråpa. 1900. Published as Þórsdrápa Eilífs Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
Goðrúnarsonar, trans. and comm. by 197–215.
F. Jonsson. Oversigt over det Kongelige Capelle, T. 1987. Eisenzeitliche Bauopfer.
Danske Videnskabers Selskabs Forhandlinger, Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 21:182–205.
5:369–410. Carlie, A. 2004. Forntida byggnadskult. Tradition
och regionalitet i södra Skandinavien.
Secondary Sources
Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet.
Alberti, B. & Marshall, Y. 2009. Animating
Archaeology: Local Theories and Carsten, J. & Hugh-Jones, S., eds. 1995a.
Conceptually Open-ended Methodologies. About the House. Lévi-Strauss and Beyond.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 19 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(3):345–57. Carsten, J. & Hugh-Jones, S. 1995b.
Amundsen, M. & Fredriksen, P.D. 2014. Når Introduction. In: J. Carsten & S.
stedsbånd veves og løses opp. En sosial Hugh-Jones, eds. About the House.
kronologi for bosetning av Kalvebeitet i Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge:
indre Sogn i yngre romertid og folkevan- Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–46.
dringstid. Viking, 77:79–104. Carstens, L. 2015. Powerful Space. The Iron
Appadurai, A. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Age Hall and its Development during the
Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Viking Age. In: M.H. Eriksen, U.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pedersen, B. Rundberget, I. Axelsen &
494 European Journal of Archaeology 19 (3) 2016
Les débats actuels sur l’ontologie des objets et sur la matière ont ravivé les discussions théoriques en
archéologie et ouvert nombre de perspectives sur le passé, des perspectives qui ont à peine commencé à
être l’objet de recherches concernant l’âge du Fer récent en Scandinavie. L’article présenté ici est un
examen critique de la tradition, qui se manifeste de façon intermittente, de recouvrir les maisons longues
et les ‘manoirs’ (halls) de tertres funéraires pendant l’âge du Fer et l’époque Viking. Après avoir servi de
marqueurs sociaux dans le paysage pendant des décennies ou même des siècles, certaines habitations
furent transformées en monuments funéraires et remplirent un rôle mnémotechnique, rappelant l’espace
dédié aux morts. Mais est-ce la maison ou le défunt que l’on enterre et honoreUn examen des structures
d’habitat recouvertes par des tertres funéraires, ainsi qu’un recours aux discussions théoriques sur la
biographie sociale et la matérialité, nous permet d’éclaircir les citations entre maisons et corps en Scandi-
navie à la fin de l’âge du Fer. En fin de compte c’est l’interprétation anthropocentrique de la pratique
d’ensevelir les maisons qui est mise en cause. Ici il s’agit plutôt de suggérer que la maison était entremêlée
avec l’essentiel du foyer et que la transformation des structures d’habitat était une forme de citation
funéraire non pas d’un individu mais du réseau entier que la maison représentait. Translation by
Madeleine Hummler
Mots-clés: âge du Fer, époque Viking, manoirs, tertres funéraires, maisons ensevelies, biographie
sociale, agentivité de la maison, matérialité
Im Gedenken an die Wohnstätten: der Tod und die Bestattung von Häusern in der
Eisenzeit und Wikingerzeit in Skandinavien
Die aktuellen Diskussionen über die Ontologie der Gegenstände und der Materien haben den Diskurs
in der archäologischen Theorie erneut und eine Vielfalt von Perspektiven über die Vergangenheit ers-
chlossen. Diese Sichtweisen haben erst begonnen, in den Untersuchungen der späten Eisenzeit in
Skandinavien aufzutauchen. In diesem Artikel wird die in der späten Eisenzeit und Wikingerzeit spor-
adisch dokumentierte Tradition Langhäuser und Edelsitze mit einem Grabhügel zu überdecken kritisch
angesehen. Nachdem diese Häuser Jahrzehnt- oder sogar Jahrhundert-lang als Landschaftsmerkmale
dienten, wurden einige Wohnsitze in Grabhügel umgestaltet, die als materielle Gedächtnisstütze des
Bereiches der Toten galten. Ist es aber das Haus oder der Tote, den man so beerdigen und ehren wollte?
Durch die Untersuchung von Wohnstrukturen, die mit Grabhügel überdeckt wurden und mit Hinsicht
auf die theoretischen Diskussionen über die soziale Biografie und Materialität wird hier versucht, die
Zitierung von Häusern und Körper in der späten Eisenzeit und Wikingerzeit in Skandinavien zu
erleuchten. Schlussendlich wird unsere anthropozentrische Einstellung gegenüber der Sitte Häuser zu
begraben infrage gestellt. Hier wird betont, dass das Haus eher mit der Wesentlichkeit des Haushaltes
verknüpft ist und dass die Umgestaltung der Gebäude eine Art von Zitierung war, aber nicht unbe-
dingt eines individuellen Toten, sondern des gesamten, verknüpften sozialen Netzwerkes eines Hauses.
Translation by Madeleine Hummler